Global Marketeers Club

27/08/2024

20/08/2024

Why Le Pain Quotidien Turned Its Founder Into an AIIt's a delicious way to centralize the company's important knowledge.

Le Pain Quotidien has been serving up fresh breads and hot sandwiches for decades, but at first glance, its latest creation could be confused with the work of a digital mad scientist.

The Belgium-based chain, founded in 1990, announced that it has replaced its recipe management system with an AI-powered "digital twin" of founder Alain Coumont. The bakery and restaurant chain says this tool, named Alain.AI, has already been rolled out to all of its 214 locations, and will help employees create menus, develop new recipes, and quickly integrate upcoming food trends.

Usually, a digital twin refers to a 3D avatar meant to replicate a real person's appearance (or a detailed digital version of a real-world physical object, like an aircraft), but in this case, the system is meant to serve as a replica of Coumont's creative ideas.

According to Le Pain Quotidien's CEO, Annick Van Overstraeten, the company is aggressively expanding into new countries and regions, but had struggled to modernize its aging recipe management system, which required all recipes to be manually entered into the system and translated. Without a solid system for organizing recipes, Van Overstraeten says, the company couldn't ensure that its products were being consistently prepared and served across all locations.

Digital solutions company November Five, which serves as LPQ's external chief technology officer, pitched Van Overstraeten on a plan to develop a new recipe management system. Powered by generative AI, Alain.AI can access hundreds of recipes from LPQ's history, all of which are automatically translated based on the restaurant's location. The recipes even include photos to show employees how specific dishes should be plated.

13/08/2024

Rethinking Fundraising: Understanding the Debt-Like Burden of Excess CapitalYou don't always want to raise the maximum amount. Use these fundraising strategies for sustainable growth.

In the startup world, raising capital is often celebrated as a major milestone. However, excessive fundraising can become a hidden burden similar to debt. While it provides the immediate fuel to accelerate growth, it also imposes significant obligations and expectations on the company. Investors and potential buyers care more about your actual commercial traction and sustainable business model than the total amount of money you've raised. The debt to lenders and equity holders with liquidation preferences becomes a significant issue, particularly when these financial expectations are not met.

Consider an entrepreneur who raises $10 million at a $30 million valuation. Two years later, after spending $10 million, the company has reached $500,000 in revenue. With a typical market multiplier of five times revenue, the company is now valued at $2.5 million--far below the initial valuation. Given a one-time liquidation preference, the founder won't see any return from an exit under $10 million, making the company unsellable at a desirable price. This scenario also makes the company unfundable by new investors, creating a financial quagmire that could have been avoided with a more strategic approach to fundraising.

Here are some smarter ways to raise:
Raise only necessary capital

One of the most effective ways to avoid the pitfalls of excessive fundraising is to focus on raising only the amount of capital needed to achieve key milestones. This approach reduces the pressure of unrealistic valuations and helps maintain a healthier balance sheet. By aligning the fundraising amount with specific, achievable goals, startups can ensure that each round of funding brings tangible progress and value to the company.

Set realistic valuations
Setting realistic valuations is crucial for maintaining investor confidence and ensuring future funding opportunities. Over-inflated valuations can hinder future funding rounds and acquisition prospects by creating unrealistic expectations. A valuation should reflect the company's current commercial traction and market conditions. This approach not only makes the company more attractive to potential buyers but also sets a solid foundation for sustainable growth.

Prioritize sustainable growth
Achieving steady, sustainable growth should be a primary focus for startups. Rapid expansion fueled by excessive capital can lead to operational inefficiencies and increased burn rates. Instead, startups should aim for consistent, manageable growth that builds a solid foundation for long-term success. This strategy makes the company more attractive to future investors and buyers, as it demonstrates a viable, sustainable business model.

06/08/2024

A Tale of 2 Steve Jobs Email Exchanges: A Master Class in Effective Communication, and a Painful $415 Million Lesson in What Not to SaySteve Jobs could write clear, concise, and effective emails. But no matter how well written, not all emails should be sent.

Steve Jobs was a master communicator, arguably best known for his "one more thing" product launches.

He was also a good writer, especially in terms of clarity and simplicity.

But, as with many things, just because you can do something -- in this case, write clear, effective emails -- doesn't mean you should.

First, an example of something you should say. In 1995, as Pixar made huge strides in graphics technology, Jobs and Intel CEO Andy Grove, a longtime mentor, held a series of discussions about how Intel could learn from Pixar. An Intel engineer followed up on Jobs's offer of help and eventually contacted Jobs directly.

When Jobs responded, as detailed in the free e-book Make Something Wonderful: Steve Jobs in his Own Words, he admitted Pixar had knowledge Intel could benefit from.

But he also writes:

Pixar's secrets were invented through significant investment over 10 years or more, and we value them highly. Even without the secrets implemented in the processor, Pixar can gain significant competitive advantage and differentiation through implementing them in software. By disclosing the "correct" way to do high quality, high performance graphics, Pixar will lose much of this to any and all competitors, with no work on their part.

Hence, the need for compensation. What does Intel propose to give Pixar for disclosing and licensing its secrets to Intel?

Clear, concise, and to the point.

Here's how the engineer responded.

We would very much like to have our meeting, but I will put that on hold based on your input. We talked to many key people on ideas to improve the microprocessor capability with the aim that this will benefit the whole industry, and everyone will benefit. We have not entered into any financial arrangement in exchange for good ideas for our microprocessors in the past and have no intention for the future.

The engineer's response is also clear and to the point.

And is when Jobs got snarky:

This approach has not served you well in the past, as evidenced by your poor graphics architectures and performance. Maybe you should think of changing it for the future ...

Instead of stopping there, he also sent Grove a note:

Maybe it's just me, but I find [the engineer's] approach extremely arrogant, given Intel's (his?) dismal showing in understanding computer graphics architectural issues in the past ...

If I were going to make hundreds of millions of something, I sure as hell would be willing to pay for the best advice money could buy ... Any[way], this isn't a sales pitch; I just wanted you to know what I thought, as always.

The line "I just wanted you to know what I thought, as always" sounds a little like Ricky Bobby's use of "with all due respect," a move intended to excuse words like "arrogant" and "dismal."

Grove, though, takes a higher road:

I am firmly on [the engineer's] side on this one. He is taking your offer to help us very seriously, rounded up the best technical people and was ready to go when you introduced a brand-new element into the discussion: money.

You and I have talked many times about this subject; you never suggested or hinted at this being a commercial exchange. I took your offer to help us exactly as that: help, not an offer of a commercial relationship.

You may remember, that from time to time I offered suggestions that pertained to your business. Examples range from porting NextStep to the 486 -- which was in our interest, too -- to my presentation to your staff on repositioning NextStep beyond that. I am not suggesting that these are comparable in value to your expertise in graphics, but I gave what I had, put some thought into the problem I saw you were facing -- and it never entered my mind to charge for it. In my view, that's what friendly companies (and friends) do for each other. In the long run, these things balance out.

I am sorry you don't feel that way. We will be worse off as a result, and so will the industry.

As thoughtful responses go, that's a good one.

And so is Jobs's response:

Andy,

I have many faults, but one of them is not ingratitude. And, I do agree with you that "in the long run, these things balance out."

Therefore, I have changed my position 180 degrees -- we will freely help [the engineer] make his processors much better for 3-D graphics. Please ask [the engineer] to call me, and we will arrange for a meeting as soon as the appropriate Pixar technical folks can be freed up from the film.

Thanks for the clearer perspective.

Short, sweet, to the point. While Jobs doesn't say he's sorry, he doesn't need to; not only has he rethought his position, he's putting his "clearer perspective" into action.

Where emails go, those are good ones.

Now here's a series of Jobs emails that are clear, concise, and to the point but should never have been written. In 2005, Jobs learned Adobe was recruiting Apple employees, counter to an agreement he felt he had with Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen.

Here's the first email Jobs sent to Chizen:

Adobe is recruiting from Apple. They have hired one person already and are calling lots more. I have a standing policy with our recruiters that we don't recruit from Adobe. It seems you have a different policy. One of us must change our policy. Please let me know who.

(While a little passive-aggressive and a lot snarky, the last two lines are also kinda fun.)

Chizen's response:

I thought we agreed not to recruit any senior-level employees (at Adobe this is Sr. Director/VP and represents about 2 percent of the population). I am pretty sure your recruiters have approached more junior ones.

I would propose we keep it this way. Open to discuss. It would be good to agree.

No corporate speak, no long, unnecessary introductions. Chizen makes his point but still leaves the discussion door open.

Jobs fires this back:

OK, I'll tell our recruiters they are free to approach any Adobe employee who is not Sr. Director or VP. Am I understanding your position correctly?

Jobs knows Adobe would prefer Apple not hire away any of its employees -- as he would prefer Adobe not do to Apple -- and he gives Chizen the opening to say so.

Which Chizen takes:

I'd rather agree NOT to actively solicit any employee from either company. If employee proactively approaches then it's acceptable.

If you are in agreement I will let my folks know.

Four short emails later, Adobe and Apple have agreed not to recruit each other's employees.

Where speed and effectiveness are concerned, it's a master class in reaching agreement.

But it's also an agreement that should never have been reached. An antitrust action and civil suit filed in 2010 eventually resulted in Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel agreeing to a settlement of $415 million for allegedly entering "no cold call" agreements to restrain recruiting of high-tech employees.

(Maybe not so "allegedly"? In 2005, Jobs emailed Google's Sergey Brin to tell him not to recruit people from Apple's Safari web browser team. "If you hire a single one of these people that means war," Jobs wrote.)

But just because you can doesn't always mean you should. (As Chris Rock, another master communicator, says, "You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that doesn't make it a good f-ing idea.") Jobs should never have suggested -- nor implemented -- agreements that could keep employees from maximizing their fair market value. While it's understandable the companies involved didn't want to lose talented employees, the way to do so is by being the employer of choice: better salaries, better benefits, better opportunities ...

Bottom line? How well you communicate -- how clearly and effectively you write and speak -- certainly matters.

But what you communicate matters a lot more.

30/07/2024

Trump Says Bitcoin Is Going to the Moon. Here's What That MeansThe presidential candidate broke the internet with his speech at the Bitcoin Conference, where he vowed to launch a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

Donald Trump spoke before a raucous, pro-crypto crowd in Nashville, Tennessee on Saturday about what he would do for their industry if elected president.

Among the internet-breaking promises he made as the headliner at the Bitcoin Conference:

He would fire Gary Gensler, the anti-crypto SEC chairman

Establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve

Turn the U.S. into the Bitcoin "superpower of the world"

Usher more Bitcoin mining into the U.S.

Trump's call to fire Gensler drew particular enthusiasm from the crowd. Still, it's worth noting that a president can't fire an SEC commissioner.

"It's hard to believe that there might be a few million voters whose singular issue in the upcoming election is the defenestration of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it might actually be true," wrote Josh Brown, CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management, in a note Sunday.

The price of bitcoin fluctuated during his speech. It's up roughly 54 percent year-to-date.

"You are building America's future with your own smarts, your own grit, and your own skin in the game," Trump said. "My job will be to set you free."

Naturally, Trump--who has campaigned as the crypto-friendly candidate for months--took a shot at the Biden-Harris administration during his speech. The two of them, he said, repress the industry through their "anti-crypto crusade":

"Let me tell you if they win this election, every one of you will be gone. They will be vicious. They will be ruthless. They will do things that you wouldn't believe."

Meanwhile, the former president vowed to create a new crypto advisory council consisting of individuals who love the industry.

Recall that just a few years ago Trump dismissed Bitcoin as an asset that drew value from "thin air" and helped facilitate illegal dealings around the world. He's since changed his tune completely--and has accepted millions in crypto donations for his campaign.

"If Bitcoin is going to the moon, as we say, it's going to the moon, I want America to be the nation that leads the way," Trump said.

Now, his commentary on building a strategic Bitcoin reserve is particularly notable. This would mean that the Federal Reserve would begin allocating the token as part of its portfolio of reserves, which currently includes gold and other foreign currencies.

Ari Redbord, the global head of policy at the blockchain research firm TRM Labs, said a move like this would diversify U.S. holdings and could offer a hedge against the devaluation of fiat currencies.

"This would likely prompt the development of new regulatory frameworks and policies to manage, protect, and utilize bitcoin holdings effectively," Redbord said.

In a note Sunday, Redbord highlighted several other implications:

It's an endorsement of blockchain technology

Position the U.S. as a global leader in crypto, which Trump wants

It would make the U.S. reserve portfolio more volatile

Clips of Trump's speech have garnered hundreds of millions of views across X over the last two days.

His latest remarks follow a failed assassination attempt on him, Biden's announcement to not seek reelection, and the emergence of Kamala Harris--nearly two decades younger than Trump--as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

As of Sunday evening, the crypto betting platform Polymarket puts Trump's victory odds at 57 percent, ahead of Harris's 40 percent.

16/07/2024

Delta Air Lines Faced Intense Criticism Over a Social-Media Post. Its Response Is a Lesson for Every BrandIt's not the first time the company's social media has been problematic.

As a general rule, running a social-media account for a major brand is probably harder than it looks. Not only is your goal to communicate the brand's values and marketing message, you have to actually interact with other people who see your accounts as an easy way to connect with you.

It's usually that part that can cause problems. That's because people are messy. No matter how hard you try, the law of large numbers says that if you spend enough time online you're going to make some people mad. If you're a huge company with millions of followers and a team of people replying to those followers, some of them are going to get it wrong.

Take Delta Air Lines, for example.

Last week, someone posted two photos of Delta flight attendants who were wearing Palestinian flag pins and conflated them with "Hamas badges." I won't share the tweet because it was, well, offensive and I've spent enough time online to know better. Whoever was running Delta's account on X apparently took the bait and replied that they would be "terrified" if they saw that on their flight and that the employees had violated the company's uniform policy.

It didn't take long before the company deleted the tweet and issued an apology:

On Wednesday, we removed a reply that was not in line with our values. We strive for an environment of inclusivity & respect for all, in our communities & our planes. The employee responsible no longer supports Delta's social channels. We apologize for this hurtful post.

Delta has also changed its uniform policy to prohibit employees from wearing any pins other than U.S. flags. That's fine I guess, though the airline is getting pushback for that as well.

Look, there's not a lot to say about the company's response. It's pretty much the thing you'd expect from a company that makes a mistake on social media. I do give them credit for at least apologizing for "this hurtful post" instead of just saying "we're sorry for those who were offended," which is not an apology at all.

It's worth mentioning that there was a time when Delta's social-media accounts were among the very best customer support channels on the internet. I've told the story before that I was once on a flight that had left the gate, only to return due to a maintenance issue. As a result, we were going to be delayed a few hours -- long enough to cause most of the people on board to miss their connections.

Sitting next to me was a gentleman who was a part of Delta's highest frequent flyer status level, called Delta 360. As he picked up his iPhone to call the dedicated customer support number for 360s, I sent a direct message to Delta's Twitter account. It was an interesting experiment because you would have thought that he would have easily been rebooked and taken care of more quickly than anyone else on the flight. In reality, however, I was rebooked on a later flight that would still get me home that night, faster than the top-tier elite traveler on his phone.

But this most recent example isn't the first time the airline's social media has proven problematic. In an earlier example, an upset flyer tweeted at Delta in frustration when their travel plans were "ruined." In response, the person handling Delta's Twitter account replied: "Can you calm down and allow me some time to work please ??"

It was bad.

This case is arguably worse, not just because it was factually wrong, but because it wades into an area that Delta definitely did not want to enter. I'm pretty sure Delta does not want to have anything to do with the most fraught international political crisis of our time. Which, I guess, is kind of the lesson here.

Look, I'm not picking on Delta. In fact, I am a pretty loyal Delta traveler myself. Everyone I've met or spoken with at the company -- including the CEO -- is well-intentioned. Are they perfect? Of course not, but they're genuinely trying to do the right thing.

Also, I get that this is hard, which is why it serves as a useful lesson for every brand. After all, your brand isn't your logo or color scheme. Your brand is the way people feel about your company, and the way they feel is influenced by every single interaction they have with you. That includes every social-media post.

Guess what? It's OK not to respond to everything someone posts at you online. You can just let it go by. You don't have to engage with people who aren't posting in good faith in the first place. You just mute them and move on.

I'm sure that if you're responsible for managing the public response of a company like Delta, you feel a need to respond, but you just don't really need to feel that. If, however, you are going to respond, it's probably worth taking a moment to make sure that what you're about to post actually reflects the values of your brand.

09/07/2024

If You Work More Than 48 Hours a Week, You May Be Wasting Your Time, According to a Stanford ProfessorI know because I tried it.

How many hours do you work in a typical week? If the answer is 50 or more, you likely are wasting at least some of that work time. That's doubly true if you spread your work over all seven days in the week, and fail to take at least one day off.

That's the intriguing result of research conducted back in 2013 by Stanford economics professor John Pencavel. Pencavel examined output data from British munitions factories during World War I and correlated number of hours worked against output. He found that at after about 48 hours, additional hours worked did not yield additional output overall. For those working more than 48 hours a week, reducing work hours "would have had small or no damaging effects on output," he wrote.

There are plenty of valid reasons to question the relevance of this research to our work lives today. For one thing, the data is more than 100 years old, and for another, the research itself goes back about 11 years. But Pencavel referenced a large number of studies that dug into data over many decades and yielded strikingly similar results.

It worked for me

But there's another reason I believe the research--personal experience. Having read research like this and suffered my own bad case of burnout, I've cut back on my own work hours and watched my income and my success increase, likely because it's forced me to focus on what's most essential, and also because with a better-rested brain, I'm able to do those more essential things a lot better than I could when I was overstuffing my schedule.

I'm not the only one. Two years ago, I interviewed psychologist and TEDx speaker Richard Shuster, who cut his workweek from 80 hours to 25 on his doctor's orders after he suffered a stroke. He, too, has seen shorter hours contribute to greater success. "Productivity is up, profitability is up, and my relationships with my children and my spouse are better than they've ever been," he told me.

But if cutting work to no more than 48 hours a week has undeniable benefits, it can also be really hard to do, especially if you work for yourself. If your customers make unreasonable demands, it can be difficult to say no because many people believe that the customer is always right. Put the customer first. Be obsessed with the customer. Delight the customer. How many times have you heard or read those phrases in ads, articles, and innumerable business books?

How do you counteract that kind of thinking? By remembering that if you are self-employed, you are also the boss, of yourself and of any employees you may have. And if a customer makes unreasonable demands, you should do what any good boss would do and push back on those demands if necessary to protect the welfare of your employees, including you.

With that idea in mind, can you set some simple boundaries to bring your work hours under control? Here are some ideas.

1. Start by setting just one boundary.
It should be something that you really want, perhaps taking a full hour to go for a walk at lunchtime, or leaving work early enough to make dinner. Or it might be something as simple as putting away your mobile phone during dinner.

Take three weeks and try to abide by that boundary every working day. Keep track of which days you succeed at doing this and which you fail. Please don't beat yourself up when you do fail. I myself have been trying to set the boundary that I stop working every evening at 9 p.m. for years, and I've missed that curfew much more often than I've met it. But I'm still glad to be trying because even when I fail, I do get done with work a bit earlier than I would have otherwise. And I can always try again tomorrow.

2. Make sure to take at least one full day off every week.
I set this boundary a few years back and it's one I've succeeded in keeping. Even if I often wind up doing some work on Saturdays, I consistently take Sundays off completely. I've found this one change to be a huge productivity boost, and Pencavel's research found the same effect. There's something about being able to disconnect from work for 24 hours that sets your brain up for better functioning and greater creativity when you return.

3. Eliminate the nonessential.
If you're going to spend less time working, then inevitably some of what you're doing now won't get done. Fortunately, this may not be a bad thing. According to neuroscientist and productivity expert Josh Davis, much of the work most of us do every day is nonessential, something we would realize if we really stopped to think about it.

So take a few days and keep track of how you spend your time. You can jot down what you're doing in a notebook or use an online tracking tool or app. For each task that you perform, ask yourself a few questions:

Is this adding value? (Examples might be making a sales pitch or solving a problem that is keeping one of your team members from doing his or her job.)
Is this non-value-added but still necessary? (Examples might include filing your business taxes.)
Is this a task I can put off till later with no serious consequences? (If yes, then consider putting it off.)
Is this a task I can hand off to someone else? (If yes, then please, please do that.)
After a few days, see if this approach has helped you reduce your work hours enough to stick with your new boundary, whatever it is.

However you approach it, chances are good that getting your work hours down to fewer than 50 a week will make you more efficient, and likely better at your work as well. But you can't know for sure until you give it a try.

This column was adapted from my book Career Self-Care: Find Your Happiness, Success, and Fulfillment at Work (New World Library, 2022).

02/07/2024

With 4 Words, Warren Buffett Explained Why He's Cutting Off the Gates Foundation and Taught a Lesson for Every LeaderBuffett will trust his three children to give away his fortune.

For decades, the friendship between Warren Buffett and Bill Gates--two of the wealthiest people on earth--has been one of the more interesting stories in business. The two met more than 30 years ago at a meeting that apparently neither wanted to attend.

Since then, however, they've become friends, mutual mentors, and colleagues. Gates joined Berkshire Hathaway's board in 2004 and served until 2020 when he stepped down as a member of Microsoft's board as well. Buffett served as a member of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation board until 2021 when he resigned shortly after the couple announced their divorce.

In 2006, Buffett pledged to give away 85 percent of his Berkshire stock, then worth about $37 billion, to charity. The bulk of that was to go to the foundation Gates started with his former wife, Melinda Gates. To date, those donations have totaled more than $43 billion.

In 2010, Buffett co-founded The Giving Pledge, which encourages billionaires to give away the majority of their wealth during their lifetime or when they die. But, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Buffett revealed that after his death, the donations to the foundation would stop. "The Gates Foundation has no money coming after my death," Buffett said.

Buffett didn't explain the reason for what--on the surface--appears to be a change from his previous plan. When Buffett resigned from the foundation's board, he explained that "my goals are 100 percent in sync with those of the foundation, and my physical participation is in no way needed to achieve these goals."

Now, that future will look very different as it has a significant funding void to fill. Buffett says he will instead put his children, "whom I trust completely," in charge of deciding what happens to his money when he dies. "I feel very, very good about the values of my three children, and I have 100 percent trust in how they will carry things out," Buffett told the Journal.

There's a valuable lesson in those four words that Buffett uses to describe the trust he has in his children. In November, Buffett previewed his estate plan, naming his three children as executors. He highlighted that his confidence comes as they have matured and prepared for the role over the past 18 years. "They were not fully prepared for this awesome responsibility in 2006, but they are now," he said.

At some point, Buffett will no longer be around to decide what to do, with one caveat. In a statement, Buffett says that his will stipulates that "more than 99 percent of my estate is destined for philanthropic usage."

The point, however, is that Buffett believes that the best people to make the decision about what to do with his wealth when he is gone are the people still living. He could have written strict commands about what to do, but he recognizes that circumstances, laws, and needs change.

"Laws in respect to philanthropy will change from time to time, and wise trustees above ground are preferable to any strictures written by someone long gone," Buffett wrote in a letter last year.

That's a valuable lesson for every leader, even if you aren't trying to figure out how to give away one of the most iconic fortunes in the history of humanity. Your job should be to build up leaders who can succeed you, and then trust them to make the right decisions without burdening them with restrictions. Ultimately, your most important job is to give your successors the best opportunity for, well, success.